Kenneth Clarke: The Minister must realise that for tens of thousands of people in the automobile industry, the Department is all talk and spin, but no action. He says that Lord Davies is still studying the proposals on car finance that we put forward as a policy suggestion months ago, but when we will get a result? As Lord Mandelson has indicated his sympathy for that policy, is it being blocked by the Bank of England or the Treasury? When will a decision be taken on this important matter?

Patrick McFadden: I attended the launch of that pamphlet a few days ago. It is right that if the Post Office is to survive and prosper it needs to look to new areas of business. It cannot survive on nostalgia or by ignoring the changes in people's lifestyles, such as using the internet and direct debits. The Post Office is already expanding its banking services: it is the leading supplier of foreign exchange in the country and it supplies credit cards, insurance and savings products. I agree with my hon. Friend that an expansion in banking and financial services is a very important part of the Post Office's future.

Andrew MacKay: Does my hon. Friend accept that the Electoral Commission is right to refocus in that way? Like most Members, I regularly visit schools in my constituency and hold question and answer sessions with fifth and sixth formers. They are very interested in a number of subjects, but none of them is the slightest bit interested in having the vote in 16.

Peter Viggers: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Most of the responses to the consultation held in 2004 supported lowering the voting age. However, the commission found that more general opinion polling suggested strong support for keeping the current minimum, and that young people seem divided on the issue.

Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the Longford chapel near Newport. He might have added Stirchley St. James and Adderley St. Peter, which are in his constituency, as I understand that they, too, benefit from the trust. His point is perfectly right. The Churches Conservation Trust is 30 per cent. Church and 70 per cent. Government funded, and it is working hard to secure its financial future by widening its funding base. I take his point that the DCMS grant was frozen in 2001 until 2008. There has recently been a small cash increase of 1.8 per cent., but it continues to be reduced in real terms. We welcome that contribution from the state, but it is not sufficient.

Patrick Cormack: Would the hon. Gentleman accept that many of us are extremely angry at the attitude recently taken in Europe? Would he also accept that at a time of unemployment, it is crucial that church buildings can be repaired, not only because that is intrinsically important, but because that work offers employment to craftsmen and others?

Stuart Bell: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's comments and for his statement that he believes in a disestablished Church. The question that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) asked related to financial commitments, which far outweigh the total inherited resources of the Church of England. In response to the question whether we ought to undertake a study, we should not put the cart before the horse. We should await any decisions that the Synod may make before we debate the matter and its financial implications. However, disestablishing the Church would affect every parish in the country, and its allegiance to the Crown and to the Church, and is a step that would be taken only after many years of consideration.

Alan Duncan: I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the forthcoming business. Her response to me last week about the encampment and the harassment by protesters in Parliament square was, I am sorry to say, painfully inadequate. When will she undertake to give a full report to the House so that we can cut through the bureaucratic nonsense governing the issue and remove what has become a permanent embarrassment to British democracy?
	May we have an urgent debate on the NHS? Yesterday we heard from the Health Secretary the miserable tale of Stafford hospital. Will the right hon. and learned Lady confirm to the House that the same senior management who were so devastatingly criticised by the Healthcare Commission on Tuesday saw their salaries doubled in 2008, and that one has been appointed to a Government watchdog? Is it not the clearest possible demonstration of Labour's priorities towards the health service that while they spent their time lining the pockets of a failed management team, there were patients lining the walls of a filthy accident and emergency ward who were dying of neglect?
	Lying behind this is, I sense, a growing problem with how health trusts and other public bodies are treating correspondence from Members of Parliament. Too often, Members' letters about a constituent are fobbed off by being sidelined into a complaints procedure designed for another purpose, and also by hiding behind data protection. Can the right hon. and learned Lady confirm that when an MP writes to a chief executive they should receive a letter back from that chief executive, that getting a letter from an MP should be regarded as a priority, and that any failure to treat an MP's letter properly should be a disciplinary offence, even resulting in dismissal?
	We are still waiting for the Government's long-delayed strategic review of reserve forces. We all have reservists in our constituencies. When will we get an announcement, and can the Leader confirm that it will be a full oral statement?
	Today 144 further education colleges have their building programmes frozen, and this morning the Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon), the Minister responsible for further educationor should I say, the Minister requiring further education?offered no reassurance that the Government would prevent those colleges from going bankrupt. May we have an urgent debate to discuss the future of those institutions, which offer vital training to the rapidly rising number of people facing unemployment?
	For the umpteenth time, may we ask for a debate and action on Equitable Life? Today the Public Administration Committee has slammed the Government for their callous betrayal of Equitable Life policyholders. It says that the Government have denied them justice. This is a truly scandalous state of affairs in which an unprincipled Government would rather see them all dead than compensated. When will the Government act properly on what the ombudsman has recommended?
	On a number of occasions I have raised the farce of Regional Select Committees. The North East Committee has five Labour members, four of whom are Parliamentary Private Secretaries, and the other a long-serving Back Bencher. I am advised that when they met, they picked one of the PPSs as Chairman, and that the only member not in hock to the Government has now decided to resign. Is this true, and may we have a further debate so that we can give the Leader of the House the opportunity to admit her mistake and abolish those Committees?
	Yesterday the scarlet-haired Solicitor-General, who has no experience of economic affairs, claimed that we would soon see green shoots in the British economy. As a barrister she was known as the towering inferno; yesterday, it seems, she finally went up in flames. Is that not the most crass statement that any politician could have made, on the day when it was announced that more than 2 million people are unemployed?
	May we have a statement on the Prime Minister's recent visit to Washington? It seems that the DVDs that President Obama gave the Prime Ministerrather like the Prime Minister himselfdo not work in the UK. We are told that one of them was Psycho and the other Gone with the Wind.
	So those are our requests for debate: there is a rotting encampment outside Parliament; there are failed NHS managers with bloated pay packets; the fate of our reserve forces is left dangling; FE colleges are collapsing; Equitable Life pensioners are betrayed; dysfunctional Select Committees are set up; we have a dysfunctional Government; and the Solicitor-General insults the unemployed. How can the Leader of the House defend any of that, without hanging her head in shame and apologising?

Harriet Harman: At last week's business questions, I answered the hon. Gentleman's question about the encampment of protesters in Parliament square by saying that he or other colleagues could raise the issue at Justice questions. I added that we had said that as part of the legislative programme, there would be consideration of a Bill on constitutional reform that could address the issue. That is very much under consideration, so I endeavoured to answer him fully on the issue.
	On the question of the national health service, there was a statement yesterday about the regrettable situation in Stafford hospital. There will be questions next week. The hon. Gentleman asked about our priorities for the NHS. They are simple and straightforward: that there should be more doctors, nurses and other staff in the NHSand that is what has happenedthat those staff should be better paid, because when we came into government they were extremely badly paid; that there should be tough targets, so that nobody should have to wait in accident and emergency or for a referral for cancer treatment; and that there should be tough inspections. We have pressed forward with our NHS priorities, which people who need treatment can expect and deserve.
	The hon. Gentleman raised a serious point about responses to Members who write on behalf of their constituents, or of organisations in their constituencies, to NHS authoritiesthe chief executives of trusts or PCTs. He has raised an important point on behalf of the House. He had mentioned it to me already, so I have spoken to the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), who has raised it with Sir David Nicholson, the chief executive of the NHS. They have said that they completely agree with the shadow Leader of the House and that if a Member writes to someone in authority in the NHS, that letter should require personal consideration by the chief executive, and a personal response. There is no guidance to that effect at the moment, but my hon. Friend and Sir David are absolutely clear about their view. They are considering whether they should issue guidance, although the matter should have been self-evident. That is the absolutely clear position. If hon. Members have any concerns about the issue, they can take them to the shadow Leader of the House and he can raise them with me, or go directly to my hon. Friend the Health Minister. We do not expect Members' letters to go into a complaints system that is designed for individual patients, not for accountability, which is what the House's job is about.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about reserve forces, and I should say that next week there will be a full day's debate on defence. He also made comments about the Solicitor-General, with whom I work closely and with whom I will be taking the Equality Bill through the House. In her role as Solicitor-General, she is a great champion of victims of crime. She is also a great champion of her constituents and her region in the north-east. She is a fine Member of Parliament who cares about these issues and is a valued member of the Government. I will not hear a word said against herI hope that I have made myself clear on that one.
	The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) also asked about Regional Select Committees. When we passed the resolution to set those up, we determined that they would last just for this Parliament, and be reviewed thereafter, so they have that consideration of review built in. I appreciate that I am not making progress with Opposition Members, but I still take the view that there are important agencies working at regional level, investing hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers' money, and it is a shame if Opposition Members cannot be bothered to hold them to account on behalf of their regions. I hope that they will have a conversion with regard to Regional Committees, although I do not set much store by that expectation. That is a pity, but in the meantime Members who are prepared to hold agencies to account in their regionsLabour Membersare getting on with the job. Until other Members join the Committees, they should not be complaining about them.
	As for Equitable Life, when the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made her statement in response to the ombudsman's report she said that the failures that have affected a large number of people were rooted in the original mismanagement of Equitable Life, which goes back to the '80s. That was compounded by regulatory failure, for which she has apologised. We have acknowledged that regulatory failure and exceptionally, although there is no legal obligation so to do, we are determined to make ex gratia payments, for which a judge has been asked to set up a scheme. Of course, as one would expect, those in the greatest need will be dealt with first. That is how we are proceeding, and we believe that we have made the position clear to the House. The work is under way, and if the Opposition want to hear about it further or debate it, they can choose it as the subject of an Opposition day debate.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned unemployment. We are very concerned indeed for every person who loses their job, whether they are a man working in the car industry or banking industry, a woman working part time or an older person who is heading towards retirement but whose job is still important to them and to their household budget. Employment in the economy is important for the economy as a whole. That is why we are ensuring that we will not be cutting capital spending, as Opposition Members propose, which would make unemployment even worse. It is why we are providing a fiscal boost and putting more money into the economy to help get it going and help staunch the problem of job loss. That has led to an increase in debt as a percentage of GDP. Hon. Members complain about that, but if they are concerned about unemployment, why do they argue that we should not do all the things that we are doing to try to protect the unemployed and prevent even more people from becoming unemployed?
	Of course, one thing that the Opposition simply refuse to acknowledge is that there is an unemployment problem across the country as a whole[Hon. Members: Too long!] I have not taken as long answering as the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton took asking his questions [Interruption.] All right, I apologise. I shall therefore finish by mentioning FE colleges.
	I remind the House that when we came into government in 1997, the capital budget for FE colleges [Interruption.] I would just like to ask hon. Members whether they can remember what the capital budget for FE colleges was then. It was 0there was no capital budget. Since then we have invested massively in further education, and rightly so. I reassure hon. Members that there are 261 colleges for which final approval has been given, or at which there is already work on site, and that the capital investments in those 261 colleges will go ahead as planned. Sir Andrew Foster will examine how preliminary approval has been given beyond the programme budget. We acknowledge that that is a problem, and it is being looked into. However, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, we will go ahead with the 2.3 billion in this comprehensive spending review period that we have allocated to further education collegesand I think that 2.3 billion contrasts favourably with 0.

Harriet Harman: Treasury questions are next Thursday and there will be a full-day's debate on the economy. The HMRC is processing promptly all the applications from those businesses that want to defer their tax. I will raise the issues to do with the tax office that my hon. Friend raised with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

Patrick Cormack: Does the Leader of the House recognise that Select Committees are one of the most important ways in which we have the opportunity truly to hold the Government to account? However, the regional Select Committees are a total travesty. Will she become the Leader of the House for once and abandon them, and instead have the regional Grand Committees, to which every Member in the region concerned is entitled to attend?

Harriet Harman: The House voted for regional Select Committees to be set up and for them to be reviewed at the end of this Parliament. That being the will of the House, that is what is happening.

Harriet Harman: At the risk of being shrill, perhaps I should answer the hon. Gentleman in a very deep voice. I refer him to the written ministerial statement that the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills issued on 4 March. The Prime Minister answered questions on this matter yesterday in Prime Minister's questions, and Sir Andrew Foster's report will be forthcoming shortly. At that point, it might well be that the Secretary of State comes to the House to make an oral statement.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend makes an important point. All our constituents find it incredibly valuable that schoolchildren come to the House. If I may, I will ask the Deputy Leader of the House to look into this matter, and possibly to issue a written ministerial statement about it. Speaking as a London MP, I am sure that we would all readily understand the idea of making such visits possible for schools from outside London, for which more complex arrangements have to be made, and do what we can to help.

Harriet Harman: I take seriously the points that the hon. Gentleman raises. It was on the insistence of the Secretary of State for Justice that we shall have two days of debate for the important remaining stages of this Bill. I will reflect together with my right hon. Friend on the hon. Gentleman's points about how to ensure that those two days are used in the best possible way for these important measures.

Harriet Harman: We welcome the Public Accounts Committee report. The defence equipment Minister has said:
	Our ability to maintain the Trident nuclear deterrent is not in doubt... Although I recognise the timelines are challenging, I remain very confident that we will deliver a new submarine on time and maintain our continuous at-sea deterrence.
	It is a challenging timetable, but the Minister expressed his confidence and there will be a defence debate next Thursday.

Michael Penning: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you have been informed whether the Secretary of State for Health has given any indication that he will come to the House and make a statement about problems in the Royal London Hospital Trust about Dr. Iwegbu, who has been reported to the General Medical Council and against whom there are six interim orders, one of which states that he is not allowed to practise elective or trauma surgery on paediatric patients.
	I do not want to involve myself in the GMC's ruling when it is made, but it was brought to my attention this morning that this doctor has been calling himself a professor for some time. The trust has now decided to stop him from doing so. An e-mail states that discreet changes should be made throughout the Trust so that no embarrassment is caused to the Professor.
	The public, including patients, have seen the doctor in good faith in the belief that he was a professor in the medical profession. Surely it is not right for such information to be sneaked out in e-mails. I fear that a cover-up is taking place in the trust over the question of whether or not this gentleman is a professor in the medical profession, and I think that the Secretary of State should come here to explain what is going on.

Legislative Reform

Brian Binley: The Minister is always immensely kind to me. I am most grateful to him. As he will know, insolvency notices provide a sizeable part of the income of many of our local newspapershe will see the irony in the fact that those newspapers are the subject of the topical debate to follow. Indeed, the Government have expressed considerable concern about the solvency of local press. Has the Minister taken that into account? I hope to speak in the topical debate, but I would like to hear his answer to that question.

Patrick McFadden: I am sure that it is more in order for me to concern myself with this debate, rather than the next one, in which I will not be seeking to speak, but I will say that we want to ensure that the advertising in terms of the insolvency process is the most effective. That is our concern and why we have proposed the order.
	The hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) asked why I disagreed with the Committee's verdict. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in another place was satisfied with the order; it gave it the thumbs-up, to use the colloquial phrase. The House of Commons Committee also stated that all the preconditions in the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 and the Standing Order tests had been met, but it expressed several reservations and stated that, in its view, the order should not be approved. Those reservations are set out in the report, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller), the Committee Chairman, will explain them, but, in brief, the Committee felt the order was too narrow in its focus and that its effects would be minor. It felt it may be unlikely to result in further dividends for creditors and would not provide them with enough protection.
	We have two main reasons for wanting to introduce this order. First, it has the potential to save business and creditors money, by reducing costs. Each advert costs an estimated 300 a time, and since there is a requirement to place two adverts, that cost is obviously doubled. That 600 charge may not be a life-or-death sum in each individual case, but when one adds up the sums involved throughout the process, it can increase the costs of insolvency. For creditors who have already lost money, it is important to ensure that their money is spent usefully during an insolvency process, so that as much as possible can be returned to them at the end of that process. The savings from the proposals, together with parallel changes that we propose to the insolvency rules, will combine to mean estimated savings of some 17 million a year. This is not a narrow measure.

Patrick McFadden: The 17 million figure is the savings from both the order we have proposed, which has been considered by the Committee, and the parallel changes to the insolvency rules, which are dealt with in a separate order under the negative resolution procedure. The reason why we have to do it this way lies in the origins of the insolvency legislation. There will be estimated savings of 17 million a year from the changes.
	That is only part of a much wider package of proposals to streamline and modernise the insolvency rules and other relevant provisionspart of which, I should inform the House, will include a further legislative reform orderwhich should save a total of about 40 million per year. Huge sums may not be involved in each individual case, but over the piece the savings gained for the insolvency process are certainly worth having. We believe the costs of introducing the order are minimal, and there is no reason why we should not introduce the changes.
	The Committee expressed concerned about the money going to liquidators rather than to creditors, but protection against that is already built into the legislation. The terms governing the liquidator's remuneration will be fixed by the creditors and the creditors can apply to the court if they consider the amount of the liquidator's remuneration to be excessive. Any liquidator taking remuneration that was not justified could find themselves subject to the scrutiny of the courts. I understand that the Committeethis is reflected in its reportwas concerned that the savings would not be passed on, so let me make it clear to the House that I want them to be passed on. There is absolutely no reason why what we propose today, and what we propose in the other connected changes to come, should increase fees charged by insolvency practitioners. This is not about increasing fees; it is about avoiding unnecessary expenditure.

John Penrose: It is always a pleasure to follow the Minister, who took such pains to be careful and reasonable in his exposition of the Government's position and took time to try to anticipate many of the questions that will be raised in this debate.
	It is vital that any modern economy such as Britain's has an efficient and effectively functioning insolvency process, if only because at a time of pretty much unparalleled economic problemsthis is one of the worst recessions for a generation or perhaps moreeverybody involved in business needs to know that the insolvency process works as quickly, efficiently and effectively as possible and does not soak up in fees as many of the available assets in an insolvency as it might. It is to everyone's advantage that as many as possible of a failing company's assets find their way to its creditors, rather than being taken up in fees. I mean no disrespect to insolvency practitionersI am sure that they are all stout and wonderful men and women, who are doing their work terribly carefully. None the less, it is clearly macro-economically to everyone's advantage to ensure that as much money as possible reaches the creditors of a company that is going bust.
	As I believe everybody here understands, when a company goes under there is not just the tragedy of the lost jobs and the destroyed hopes of its workers; the huge danger is the knock-on effect of the company's suppliers being dragged down too. Any money that can be spared to pay creditors at a higher rate of pennies in the pound has to be to Britain's overall economic advantage.
	Taking the temperature of the interventions made, I would say that there is a great deal of sympathy on both sides of the House for the principles behind this measure. There are some specific questions and details on which I shall press the Minister for further answersI am sure that such matters will dictate how Members react at the end of this debate in deciding how to vote.
	The Minister has admitted that this is a relatively small step down an important road. This measure produces some 3.6 million worth of benefits, although it is part of a larger package that is worth roughly 17 million. Given the total number of likely insolvencies this year, that is a relatively tiny drop in the large ocean of Britain's economy, but the best should not be the enemy of the good. Put another way, it is better to have half a loaf than none. If we can take a small step as a start on an important journey, we should do so.
	The Minister said that other measures are in the pipeline, which might stem from a process that began in July 2005 as a larger scale project to consolidate and modernise the insolvency rules introduced in 1986. Paragraph 9 of annexe C to the regulatory impact assessment, which I am sure every Member here has read assiduously, states:
	It was originally intended that all the remaining proposals would be taken forward by means of one draft Order. However, in order to meet Ministerial priorities
	I would be interested to learn what those priorities were
	the advertising changes...will proceed within a separate draft Order
	which is this one. It continues:
	The remaining proposals will continue to be taken forward within a subsequent draft Order that is likely to be laid early in 2009.
	We are in mid-March 2009, and it is important that Members and the public understand the Government's intentions. The Minister has already said that he has plans to introduce more substantive cost-saving measures in due course, but we need to know precisely when. The Government were considering some seven or eight other proposals, and we need to know which will be introduced and when. The advertising market is suffering badly, so the local newspaper industry is unimpressed by this proposal. The Minister's timing could have been better, and people would accept this measure more readily if they knew that it was part of a wider package rather than something that picked on the local newspaper industry in particular. I hope that the Minister will be able to provide a timetable when he replies to the debate.
	The Minister also mentioned the concern about whether the savings will get through to the creditors, and it is important that we have certainty on that point. If the local newspaper industry feels that it is being picked on, the strongest counter-argument would be for the Minister to look the editors of those newspapers in the eye and say, This is part of a package of measures that will help the wider economy and potentially save many companies from going bust. It is therefore essential that the money gets through and achieves the outcomes that the Minister promises. He has already made several comments that will reassure many people that the Government are serious about ensuring that the money reaches the intended recipients. Are the Government willing to consider post-legislative review of the success of this measure, in a year or two's time, to ensure that itand the others that the Government have promisedhas had the intended impact, and that the money has not been swallowed up by the addition of a couple of extra hours to the insolvency practitioner's bill? If the Minister can provide some reassurance on that point, the insolvency profession will also know that the Government will remain vigilant on the matter.
	The crucial issue is the protection of creditors. The Minister has already pointed out that in roughly one in 50 casesnot a large number, but none the less an important proportion of casesif a newspaper advertisement is not placed in the local press, some creditors do not know that a creditors' meeting is taking place. If they do not know, they cannot attend and represent their interests, which may mean that they lose out in the eventual insolvency procedure. They may not get as much money as they might have done if they attended the meeting to ensure that their interests were properly put forward. The Minister pointed out that the order is not intended to stop advertising entirely, but to provide greater freedom and flexibility to the insolvency profession to decide whether to place advertisements in local press or, in the case of larger companies that do not operate in only one newspaper's area, in alternative sources of mediaperhaps on the web or in the trade pressto ensure that the job of informing creditors is done more effectively.
	The Minister also said that the Government will not suggest to insolvency practitioners that, in the right circumstances, they should not continue to advertise in the local press. For many companies, especially small ones that trade locally, advertising in the local press will be the right approach, and if the insolvency profession exercises its discretion intelligentlyas I am sure it willthe advertisements will continue to be placed as at present. Will the Minister confirm that the basic duty on the insolvency profession to ensure that creditors are properly informed will not be weakened by this measure? If that fundamental legal duty is not eroded by this measure, it will further underpin his case that this is about greater flexibility and efficiency rather than removing an essential protection for potentially important groups of creditors in the local economy.
	We will listen carefully and with great hope to the Minister's responses on those points before we decide how to respond.

Andrew Miller: My fears come from the reality of current practice. As the Minister explained, fees can be subject to legal challenge. We now have an unambiguous statement on the record from a Minister of the Crown that makes it clear that if subsequent proceedings challenged whether advertising savings were not passed on to the creditor, it would be wrong for the practitioner to do that. If my right hon. Friend the Minister disagrees with that interpretation, I would welcome an intervention from him. As he does not want to intervene, I think we now have absolute clarity on his meaning. I do not think that there is any dispute around the House.
	I took particular interest in this order because it coincided with my dealing with a specific case. It is not fair to name the individual concerned, because he is a constituent who, despite his best efforts, has unfortunately been bankrupted. The action came, as it quite often does with small businesses, from HMRC. The sum involved was 5,249.52. The final coststhe amount that he was required to pay in fullwere 34,293.81. I cannot find any legitimate basis for some of the fees listed. Trustees' future remuneration cost 2,500, legal fees were estimated at 5,000 and trustees' remuneration was estimated at 7,659. That seems an absurd set of fees for dealing with something that could have been knocked out on the back of a fag packet in five minutes.
	The Committee and I want to be sure that in dealing with the order, which genuinely makes a welcome saving, we do not lose sight of the bigger picture. When we introduce the miscellaneous provisions order and all the rule changes that my right hon. Friend the Minister rightly wants to introduce, we need to get to grips with some of these stupid things. They are stupid. There can be no basis for the emergence of figures such as those in my example.
	The Committee did not oppose the substance of the Government's proposal; in fact, we did quite the opposite. We were concerned that the documents before us did not inspire confidence that there was determination to drive the process forward and to ensure that people such as my constituent do not face figures that are out of kilter with any measure of reality. I would hope that, on the basis of the assurance that my right hon. Friend the Minister gave to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and me, we will be able to make progress and ensure that when the full picture emergesincluding the draft order that we are due to see, I am told, in early Aprilit is much more transparent and helps hon. Members giving help and guidance to their constituents to feel confident that fee structures are based on fair and reasonable practices. I hope that they will be able to be confident that insolvency is fair to the people who have often worked extremely hard but whose businesses have failed for reasons beyond their controlbrought to an end by something further up the food chainand to their creditors, and that it is not focused on the financial interests of the professionals charged with managing the process of insolvency.
	The Committee also wants my right hon. Friend to assure us that although we disagree on the order the Department will make no attemptI do not mean this pejorativelyto steamroller the Committee into a line of thinking. The Minister's assurance on the procedures and practices that were given when the rules were established should also be maintained. We could have used our nuclear option and sought to veto the order. The Minister would have been honour bound to accept our veto, but we do not want to get into that sort of game. We want to ensure that the processes that evolve from the Committee's work enable us constructively to progress the legislative reform process. I hope that the Minister will give the Committee the assurances that it seeks in that regard as well.

John Hemming: The House may be aware of my interest in procedural issues. I am a bit of a glutton for punishment and am attending this debate wearing two hatsone as my party's temporary Front-Bench spokesman on these matters, and the second as a member of the Regulatory Reform Committee. I also happen to sit on the Modernisation Committee: interestingly, that Committee does not meet any more, so we are obviously modern now.
	I am also an enthusiastic member of the Procedure Committee, which means that I turn up to its sittings as well. The House may not be surprised, therefore, to hear that my concerns about how this matter is being handled are procedural, and are about the process by which the Government are driving through a proposal against the recommendation of the Regulatory Reform Committee, and against the concerns expressed in writing by the Chair of the Business and Enterprise Committee.
	People outside Parliament argue that politics is broken, while a group of parliamentarians are concerned about Parliament being constrained in its ability to represent citizens, and about the fact that the Executive control Parliament. The order before us may be relatively minor, with 3.6 million being taken away from the newspapers and probably given to the GovernmentI shall say more about that laterbut the real question is why the Government have seen fit to use a whipped process to go against two Select Committees of the House.
	Governments are supposed to work by explanation and by giving information about the decisions that they take. Although it seems clear that this decision was taken outside Parliament, the Government are using the whipped process to make even the Chair of the Regulatory Reform Committee go against his Committee's recommendation.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) has what he calls his dustbin theory of decision makingthat is, that a dustbin is taken round and everyone chucks a bit inbut what we should really be looking for is evidence-based decision making. It is wrong for the Government to go against the recommendations of the Regulatory Reform Committee and of the Chair of the Business and Enterprise Committee because that decision is not based on evidence.
	When an insolvency occurs, the business involved normally ends up insolvent, although sometimes it will end up solvent. Not all creditors are the same: there are priority creditors, such as Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs; there are secured creditors, which generally are the banks or the Government, and finally there are the unsecured, smaller creditors. As it is found out what the assets areperhaps someone will have managed to sell off a going concernpeople will go through all those creditors, ending up with a sum of money at the end of the process.
	If we reduce the costs of the process by saying that the newspapers will not be paid 3.6 million a year, the result will be that, in different insolvencies, that money will go to different people. The likelihood is that it will go to HMRCthe Governmentor to the banks. Mainly it will go to the Government, so the effect of the cost of insolvency going down by about 600 will be that the smaller creditors about whom we are all concerned are unlikely to receive much in the way of additional funds from most insolvencies, although they will get some.
	That is not necessarily the big issue, but we do not know for sure, because we have not been given the evidence that we need to make this decision. Instead, the Government have decided to use their power, as the Executive controlling the legislature, to force the change through.
	What effect does advertising in local newspapers have? That is an important question. We know that there is an effect, and that one person in 50 who finds out that he or she is a creditor of a firm involved in insolvency does so by that means. Such people may or may not get some money out of the process, but it can be argued that the information could be better communicated by the use of alternative advertising techniques, such as notices placed on the internet or in the  London Gazette .
	The Government's case is that, if people in business know that there is a place online to which they can go to find out where there are insolvencies, it is likely that they will not get caught out by an insolvency that they do not know about. On the Committee, I was relatively sympathetic to that approach, but we have not been given the evidence on which to make the decision. That is why I believe that the Government are going about the matter in the wrong way, from a procedural point of view.
	This may be connected to the targets for removing administrative burdens from the civil service. It is a good idea to do that, and there is no question but that this order ticks that box, but to make the decision, we do not have the key information that we need. People are to be told that the only place where they can find out about administrations and insolvencies is the  London Gazette website, but it is hard to predict what proportion of the 2 per cent. of unsecured creditors who find out about an insolvency that affects them because it has been advertised in the newspaper would fail to find out about it if the information were no longer available from that source.
	My feeling is that people who have been in business for some time will learn relatively quickly how to go about getting the money that they are owed, and that is why I was sympathetic to the proposal. However, it is important to realise that we do not have the figures to allow us to analyse the different types of insolvency, or to determine where the 3.6 million saving would go.
	There will be very few circumstances in which the money will go to the insolvency practitioner, although that is obviously possible. Given that this is a 600-per-transaction arrangement, one would expect that in many transactions only the secured creditorsthe banks and HMRC, and thus mainly the Governmentwould get the money. At a time when local newspapers are suffering financially from the loss of advertising, we are going to take 3.6 million away from them and give an indeterminate but substantial amount to the Government.

John Hemming: I agree that there is a need to review the priorities. This area of law is very complex, and one point made by the Committee is that we are looking only at a teeny-weeny bit of it here. My concern is that we do not have the evidence that we need about who would be affected by the proposal. It is most likely that the Government will be the substantial beneficiary, but we do not know.
	The full power of the Whips are being used in respect of this order, and that is why I support the proposals from the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen). He believes that Select Committees should be elected, because that would weaken substantially the sanctions that could be taken in situations like this against recalcitrant Select Committee members or Chairs. The reality of the power of the Executive to control the legislature is that if we do not get a balanced legislature through electoral reform, civil servants will continue to persuade Ministers on the basis of targets, and Ministers will continue to exert their ministerial power, through the Whips, to force decisions on this Chamber without evidence.
	I have not talked to my colleagues about pressing for a Division on this matter. If there were to be a Division, I would vote against the motion, but I would do so on the procedural point. We are going about things in the wrong way. The power of the Government is being used

John Hemming: I accept much of what the Minister says. Sympathetic though I was to the proposals in the Committee, I think that the Chair would accept that it was my suggestion that, as other members of the Committeegenerally Labour Memberswere uncomfortable with the proposals, we should be a little bit resistant. We then encountered the power of the Whips, and that is the point at which what the Government are doing is inappropriate. Obviously all these things are valid proceedings, but this one is inappropriate. It would be far better to have more dialogue with the Committee and look at the evidence. In practice, it would be nice if the Minister told us how much of the money will go to the Government, but he cannot be expected to know the answer, because it would require some work by civil servants. A decision will be taken within three hours of the commencement of this debate, and we shall go one way or the otherbut we do not know. That is the wrong way to proceed.
	If we want proper evidence-based Government decision making, we must have the evidence during the decision-making process. When there is a deadline, and the whipped process is involved, we have to make a decision without knowing the facts. That is an appalling way of running Government. If there was a Division I would vote against the order on that procedural point. Although we do not have the evidence, the probability is that the substantive argument is reasonable, in that commercial creditors will learn where they can find out whether there is something that they should be worried about. In a recession, I am unhappy with taking money from newspapers and giving it to the Government, but I am most unhappy about the fact that the Government are using the power of the Executive to force a decision through the House, without evidence and against the recommendation of one Select Committee and of the Chair of another.

Gordon Banks: It is good to be able to support many of the comments made by the Regulatory Reform Committee Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Andrew Miller). As we have heard, we are not discussing one of those matters of national importance that we often debate in the House these days, but this subject still has a significant degree of interest.
	The Government's recommendations may not have a negative impact on millions of people, but those who do feel their impact will feel a little less comfortable with the whole voluntary liquidation process. We have already heard about the process set out in the order, so I shall not go into great detail about that, other than to say that the need to advertise in the  London  Gazette would stay, butthe bit that worries methe need for local advertising would disappear, and be replaced with additional advertising as deemed appropriate in each case.
	As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Committee Chairman and my right hon. Friend the Minister, the Committee's first report of the Session concluded that the order had a narrow focus, with the possibly minor effects that have already been referred to. Given the wider concerns about insolvency, which were discussed in the Committee too, and the growing number of such cases in the current economic downturn, the sector should be subjected to a review, to modernise insolvency legislation, even wider than the one under way. That remains my belief, and the example that my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston gave about an insolvency in his constituency shows why the sector needs closer scrutiny.
	I do not doubt that the order will deliver minimal financial savings from the insolvent estatethe estimate is 600 per case. We have heard suggestions from Opposition Members about where that money might go. In my experienceto reinforce the comments of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming)it is unlikely to get into the hands of the unsecured creditors. Does the order remove a burden from the creditors? Indirectly. It removes a function from the insolvency practitioner, but whether removal of that burdenif we want to call it thatactually puts funds back into the hands of creditors, especially unsecured creditors, can never be measured. Perhaps I am being cynical, but my experience tells me that all too often no funds are available after the costs of the insolvency practitioner have been met. The result is that individuals and businesses who have lost money have little or no return. That is a real concern for me.
	There are other ways to deliver returns for creditors, such as maximum caps. As my right hon. Friend the Minister is aware, I tabled a parliamentary question on that matter, to which he courteously replied. There is much more we can do to focus on returning funds to creditors, secured and unsecured, beyond this narrow order.
	I understand that there is an obvious need for practitioners to be recompensed, otherwise there will be nobody to do the business, but apart from words said in this place, there seems to be little acknowledgement that the process is meant to benefit creditors. The process is not intended to keep insolvency practitioners in business and generate income for them. Unsecured creditors are the real victims in such cases. Recent reports of fees of 35 million for individual windings-up are mind-boggling, as were the numbers cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston about the size of the insolvent estate in his example. The insolvency practitioner involvement that could deliver a 35 million winding-up cost is beyond my comprehension.
	I have never had an awful lot of confidence that an insolvency, voluntary or not, would generate much payback for my business. Many businesses the length and breadth of the UK will have similar feelings.
	The order retains the burden to send notices to all creditors and to update the insolvent company's website. I argue, as I did in Committee, that the removal of the need for local advertising is detrimental to small businesses and individuals securing information relating to the insolvency.
	We have heard from my right hon. Friend that the burden of the requirement to advertise locally only involves doing so in the local newspaper serving the area where the head office of the business is situated. I fully understand and accept that, but the House must grasp the fact that most insolvencies in the UK are not the size of Woolworths; they are local, and local papers provide a necessary flow of information to potential local creditors.
	As no other changes were proposed in the order, I found it peculiar that we were faced with it in the first place, and it is intriguing that we are now debating it on the Floor of the House. There have been representations about the revenue for local newspapers from advertising costs. I support the Newspaper Society's representations about that loss of revenue, but I could not argue solely on that basis that I was not content with the order.
	The order will remove the flow of information. It does not deliver more information, and that is what is needed. If I went to businesses in my constituency, or to people in the sector of which I have experience, and asked them if they knew about the Gazette, they would obviously think that I was talking about some local paper. Most of them would have no comprehension of what the  London Gazette is.
	Information needs to be more available, not less, and I do not think that that will be the result of the order. In a submission, we were asked to have faith in the accounting records of the businesses that are in trouble, and to rely on those accounting records to provide a full list of creditors. I question whether that is realistic. Businesses in trouble do not make record-keeping a priority. Staff are paid off, and jobs are merged. There is not enough time to do jobs fully. Short cuts are taken and there is often inappropriate behaviour. I urge the Department to grasp what goes on in such situations on the ground.
	The expectation that directors will co-operate with insolvency practitioners is fine; that is what we should expect. However, there are different levels of co-operation. Many directors also have limited knowledge of the operating processes of their companies. That applies particularly to basic housekeeping functions, such as the upkeep of sales and purchase ledgers. Those functions are vital in determining who is a creditor. Directors do not provide us with all the answers, and I say that having been a director for more than 20 years.
	I am unconvinced that the savings of more than 3 million will be delivered. I am uneasy about whether, in 80 per cent. of cases, no additional advertising would be requiredbut that is what will have to happen if we are to achieve those savings. We heard from the Minister about 17 million of savings more generally; those are in what is coming the Committee's way. However, this order relates to savings of 3 million. I can understand that in 80 per cent. of casesthe percentage of cases that will have to be affected if we are to generate the 3 million-plus of savingsthose concerned would not get the additional advertising, but I am yet to be convinced that they do not merit it.
	To my mind, the order does not do anything to improve our insolvency practices, or to justify creditors' belief and hope that insolvency practices will deliver something for them. I share the Committee's view that it would be appropriate to review those processes fully. I am sure that if the order had been part of a Bill that improved those processes and therefore improved the return to creditors, particularly unsecured creditors, members of the Committee would have supported it wholeheartedly. However, as a stand-alone order, it leaves me a bit baffled.
	The fact that the insolvency sector is growing is a sign of our times, sadly. The fact that costs in the sector seem to be escalating should worry us all. I urge the Government to address some of the major concerns regarding costs, rather than focusing on the level of minutiae dealt with in the order.

Nigel Evans: May I first declare an interest? I own a small newsagent's in Swansea. I thought that I would cover myself just in case I said something in favour of local papers in this debateor in the next one, for that matter. I should like to pass on apologies from my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), who intervened on the Minister for Employment Relations and Postal Affairs at the beginning of the debate. Sadly, he is chairing a Committee and cannot be here, but I am sure that he will read  Hansard diligently tomorrow to see the answer to his question.
	The focus of the debate is tight; I will try to make my contribution as exciting as I can, but the subject is a bit turgid, to say the least. However, clearly the issue has an impact on a number of people, because the requirement to place two advertisements in local papers has probably been about for a long time. I see that the  London Gazette was first published in 1665; the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) probably remembers reading the first edition when he was a child, but perhaps not. Things have moved on just a little bit since 1665.
	I was reflecting only today on where we are now, compared to where we were when I first became a Member of Parliament. It is not so long ago that I had my first mobile phone. It was the weight of a brick, and the reception was so poor that, at times, it was as useful as a brick. I then got my first computer, so I threw away the typewriter and the Tipp-Ex, which was all rather exciting. Then the internet came along. We can all remember the days when we would try to download the first page of a document on a dial-up. We could go and bake a cake, or do something else, while that page was downloading. Now, we are talking about 100 megabytes a second. So times have moved on, and newspapers are moving along with them. A lot of the newspapers that we are talking about are online, but we are not quite at the stage at which many of them will be able to survive the recession. Things are pretty tight for them.
	I suppose that the big question is whether we are talking about retaining an obligation on liquidators to advertise in two local newspapers as a means of preserving local newspapers. That is clearly not why the obligation was created in the first place. The aim was to get the information out to the creditors, and clearly in 1665 advertising in two local papers, and using the  London Gazette, was the way to do that. I do not know how many people read the  London Gazette these days. I suspect that it is not a lot. I suspect that more people read it online than buy copies of it. I would not even know where to buy a copy of it. Speaking as a former newsagent, I do not think that we ever sold a copy. I do not think that we even stocked it. I certainly do not remember any of my customers coming in and saying, Have you got the  London Gazette?

Gordon Banks: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are many small businesses in the UK that still do not have internet access because they do not think that they need it? They might be right, because they know their businesses better than we do. The benefits of internet access are limited for a small one-man plumbing operation, whose business is gathered by word of mouth.

Nigel Evans: A one-band band such as a plumber is a good example, because they tend to work from early in the morning until late at night. The last thing that they want to do is sit in front of a computer when they get homethey want to have their tea and go to bed, because they are tired. I accept that we have to be careful in our assumptions. We are not imposing an obligation on the liquidators to put anything on the internetthey can do so additionally if they think it appropriate. We are therefore talking about the  London Gazette: it was founded in 1665, and it will still be here in 2365, the way that we are going.

Brian Binley: Will my hon. Friend tell us whether he has any shares in the  London Gazette, because it sounds as if he does not have much of an interest in the paper.

Nigel Evans: This is the best advertising that the  London Gazette has had since 1665. I suspect that sales will soar tomorrow, as people go out and get a copy to see what it looks like. The publication is available online, the Minister told us, which is reassuring, but the thrust of my argument is, first, how do we get the information to the creditors and, secondly, can we make sure that creditors lower down the food chain will receive the money?
	The savings will not go to the Government, because the Minister said that it will go to primary creditors, whoever they are. However, the people lower down the food chain, whom the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) was talking about, are the ones we really care about. If the 600 saving goes to small and medium-sized enterprises, I would support that, but there is a big question mark about whether that is the case. I hope, however, that in making these changes we will not push local papers closer to the brink of collapse. If this is the start, I am sure that there will be other regulatory reforms in future that will remove the obligation to place advertisements in local papers, which will further cripple the papers that we all cherish in our local areas.

John Howell: I can assure the House that I will be as brief as possible so that we can make progress.
	I thank the Minister for his exposition of the order, which allayed a number of my fears. However, there is a world of difference between removing the obligation to advertise in newspapers and discouraging insolvency practitioners from advertising in local newspapers. We have to be careful lest the one stray into the other. There is a big push to use the internet. I am a great supporter of the internet, but we must recognise that it has limitations. A benefit of the age in which we live is that, as the marketing industry knows, we have several different channels for reaching the market. The old ones do not necessarily fall out of use, and are still appropriate in the right circumstances.
	We must achieve a balance between, on the one hand, access to information and the protection of creditors and, on the other, the need to reduce red tape and costs. I would differentiate between large companies, which trade widely and for which local newspapers are not particularly relevant, and small and medium-sized businesses, which are the backbone of our industrythey are certainly the mainstay of my constituencyand local newspapers play a major role for them. The notices that appear in those publications are well read, newspapers at that level are accessiblepeople can pick them up, read them on the train, and fill in time wherever they areand, most importantly, they are trusted. At the moment, in relation to insolvency, the internet is not always trusted, and there have been a number of cases in my constituency in which companies have gone into liquidation but the liquidators have not been quick enough to stop the internet trading arm continuing to trade, so people have lost their money. They just go into the pool of creditors, even though the normal business has stopped trading.
	I am all for reducing red tape. We may not be here specifically to benefit the media, but the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) are right. We must recognise the state that the local newspaper business is in. It is facing hardship, and we need to ensure that we do not damage it even further. I therefore seek reassurance from the Minister that, if the measure goes through, insolvency practitioners will not actively be discouraged from using newspapers; that newspapers will continue to have the means to convince insolvency practitioners of their value; and that we will monitor the process to ensure that, ultimately, creditors do not lose out.

Barbara Follett: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are right; this debate is not so much for Front-Bench as for Back-Bench contributions, so I will narrow mine down.
	The drop in print readership has had a crucial effect on the advertising revenue that regional and local newspapers can expect to receive. In fact, it has changed the economy of the media as a whole. The effect on equity is dramatically illustrated by the share prices of two of the four major regional news groups, which have dropped by more than 95 per cent. Those trends are exacerbated by current market conditions, which particularly affect advertising spend. There are global difficulties, and a fundamental shift is being caused by the transition from traditional methods of news gathering and reporting to the versatility of the digital world, which allows us to get news wherever we are on mobile phonesthings that we keep in our pockets. The Government therefore have an important role in ensuring that a vital service that the public trust and enjoy is maintained for them.
	Digital Britain will provide a comprehensive strategy for maintaining this country's leadership in all aspects of the communications, media and cultural worlds, and as such it will offer thoughtful and practical proposals. It will take into account the views and expertise of media industry professionals, detailed analysis of the needs of the public and the economy, and the public's views on securing the future of local and regional news.
	First, the report will consider various options to ensure that the audience can enjoy the provision of high-quality regional news. In that respect, the recent memorandum of understanding signed by ITV and the BBC is an important step forward. Other options are also being considered for the longer term, including a potential role for a new public service broadcasting institution that would build on Channel 4's strength.
	Secondly, the report will give priority to local and digital radio. Historically, Government and regulators have sought to secure the provision of news on radio by prescribing the number of hours of local news that must be provided by each station. Those licence requirements, alongside the localness regime, have secured a strong local news presence on the radio. However, although we remain of the view that local news is an essential part of the public value of radio, we also recognise the challenges that the industry faces. A review is already under way to examine the role that radio should have in delivering local content in a predominantly digital landscape. The review is expected to report back to Government in the next few weeks and will be reflected in the final report.
	We are also aware that there is increasing support for a relaxation of conditions on greater consolidation of local media businesses. The principle is that by sharing resources, particularly in news gathering, we can help to reduce costs. We have therefore invited the Office of Fair Trading, Ofcom and other interested parties to undertake an exploratory review across the local and regional media sector to inform a decision on the existing merger regime.
	We all recognise the difficult conditions in which the media currently work, but we should also recognise that the transition to a digital world brings enormous potential to widen and deepen the democratic process. The correct response to a digital Britain is for our media, the envy of the world, to apply their natural propensity for innovation and instinctive creativity to finding solutions to the challenges we face. That means that we need a new way of thinking so that we see a new era of possibility, not an endless vista of threat and decline. We also need a new approach whereby people in the media share a vision of the future and use the converged landscape to forge partnerships.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently asked the industry to set out the key actions that it believes need to be taken in the short and longer term to sustain local media. He also agreed that the Government would host a conference bringing together all the interested partiesthe National Union of Journalists, the Society of Editors, the Newspaper Society, local media, MPs and local and regional bodiesfor a broad discussion of the issues affecting local media and potential new business models. That conference will take place as soon as possible. I am pleased that a more collaborative approach is already emerging, with the memorandum of understanding agreed last week between the BBC and ITV about the provision of news. That is a welcome step forward, which should enable others across the media landscape, including commercial partners, to examine new ways of delivering news.
	Convergence in the media not only gives rise to challenges but creates new business opportunities. A sensible strategy that uses that convergence can help to sustain our vital local media. We must explore partnerships locallyprivate and public sector ones and those that involve local government, which has tended to turn to other methods of conveying its news. Is there potential for a new national network of local media consortiums? Is there potential for partnerships to emerge with the size, scale and vision to break down the old barriers into the media by offering work experience, training and apprenticeships to those who were previously excluded or would not have aspired to a media career, through lack of money or local opportunity? Is there potential to end the old who you know, who can afford it culture of journalism? That would be a truly worthwhile legacy of convergence.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said earlier this year that the provision of local news and the plight of local newspapers has to rise up the political agenda. We are achieving that. We will work tirelessly to secure for local communities in every part of the country news that maintains the high standards that have long been associated with British journalism.

Edward Vaizey: We are debating an immensely important subjectthe future of not simply a specific industry or sector, but a sector that is vital to our democracy. It seems rather sad to me, as a relatively new boy, that we have only 90 minutes to debate the subject and not the full three and a half hours that we could have if the business ran until 6 o'clock. Perhaps the Modernisation Committee, of which I used to be a member and on which I cut my teeth, could consider the matter. One example of the fall-out is that we will hear from the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) for only six minutes, and that is unfortunate.
	We are all used to local newspapers and to broadcasts on the BBC and ITV to which we can look for local news. Even in the current crisis for local newspapers, 40 million adults read 1,300 regional and local newspapers daily or weekly, some paid for and others free. A quarter of the regional press work force is focused on editorial activities. The sector still employs around 40,000 people, and 110,000 paper boys deliver local newspapers. It is still the largest advertising medium in the UK, taking almost 3 billion a year and accounting for 16 per cent. of all advertising revenue. While some of that is migrating online, about 95 per cent. is still print advertising. However, online is becoming more important for local newspapers.
	We are debating the local and regional press because they find themselves in a perfect storm. They will not only have to change their business models radically in any event because of the advent of the internet, but they must do it in perhaps the toughest recession the country has experienced in our lifetime. The lifeblood of local newspapers in particularclassified advertisingwas already migrating to the internet. Whereas, even five years ago, one would buy a local newspaper to find what jobs were available or what property one could buy locally, one can now do that at the click of a mouse on a range of websites. The recession has made the paradigm shift even more acute.
	We debated local media as recently as the end of January in Westminster Hall. The Newspaper Society told me then that it predicted a reduction of 20 per cent. in advertising revenue in the third quarter of last year. I now understand that the advertising revenue of at least one major regional news company declined by 55 per cent. in the fourth quarter. Some people predict that about 40 per cent. of the 12,000 estate agents in this country will go out of business during the recession, and that will have an obvious knock-on effect on local newspapers' revenue.
	I do not need to spout a series of statistics at hon. Members, because we all buy our local newspapers assiduously and we can all see the physical manifestation of what I am talking about, which is that local newspapers are thinner and their coverage is perhaps sketchier than it has been. When we debated local newspapers in Westminster Hall at the end of January, we were all keen to praise the fantastic works that local newspapers do in our constituencies. In my constituency, we have the  Herald series, which has a fine editor in Derek Holmes and Simon O'Neill editing the  Oxford Mail, and a good local reporter, Emily Allen. I made the point that in my four years in Parliament, three reporters who worked for the local paper for 30 or 40 years have retired. We will not see their like again, in the sense that people are unlikely to work for a local newspaper for 10, 20 or 30 years, so everything is in flux.
	As I have mentioned, however, it is not the recession alone that is causing the problem, but a shift caused by the internet and changing patterns of media that have been going on for quite some time. The revenue of commercial radio has fallen by 20 per cent. since as long ago as 2003, and some four out of 10 commercial radio stations are no longer profitable. ITV has proposed substantial cuts to its regional news service, but we cannot pretend that the cuts were forced on ITV only in the past few monthsthey have been a long time coming. We welcome the announcement that ITV is to work with the BBC to share costs, which I understand will be worth some 7 million a year by 2012. However, that is in no way enough to cover the huge gap in the cost of regional news, which is some 60 million.
	The change is therefore urgently needed. However, although we obviously welcome the Government's decision to look at the market and to get the Office of Fair Trading to hold an inquiry, we are within our rights to ask whether it is too little, too late. We certainly need a dramatic look at the regulations governing ownership and competition. Even in America, the Democrat leader of Congress, Nancy Pelosi, has written to the American Attorney-General asking him to intervene to save local news organisations. She makes a good point, which applies to this country, too:
	I am confident that the Antitrust Division, in assessing any concerns that any proposed mergers or other arrangements in the San Francisco area,
	which she represents,
	might reduce competition, will take into appropriate account, as relevant, not only the number of daily and weekly newspapers in the...Area, but also the other sources of news and advertising outlets available in the electronic and digital age
	That goes to the heart of my argument. The Competition Commission and the Office of Fair Trading have been very much behind the curve. They refused the decision of the BBC and commercial broadcasters to create Kangaroo because they were looking at too narrow a market. We urgently need to sweep away the rules of media ownership that prevent consolidation of local newspaper groups and alliances between local newspaper groups and commercial radio companies.
	Five years ago those restrictions would have been appropriate, because they would have allowed one organisation to have a dominant impact on a local area. However, with the advent of the internet, that is no longer possible. There are now myriad local sources to which local people can turn. If we want to find a market solution to what is happening, we have to deregulate as rapidly as possible. We know that the Government have intervened in the past to suspend competition rulesfor good or, as some might say, for badwhen the situation was urgent. I submit that the situation is now particularly urgent for the local press.
	There is a great deal of concern about whether too many local councils are substituting their newspapers for local newspapers. Does the Minister take the same view as the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families on the Killian Pretty review of planning applications? It has recommended that local authorities should be allowed to pull planning application notices from local newspapers. The Secretary of State has indicated his opposition to that proposal. I asked the Minister from the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform about this in our debate in January, but he failed to give me an answer. This Minister is more robust and clear sighted, however, and I know that she will give us an answer on the Government's position today.
	We urgently need the OFT to get on with this inquiry. We need the rules to be pushed to one side, to allow newspapers and commercial radio companies to provide a market solution to their problems, and to consolidate and form alliances as and when they think it appropriate.

Mark Lazarowicz: Inevitably, much of the focus of today's debate will be on the crisis facing many of our local newspapers. I share that concern, as do those of my constituents who work in the local and regional Scottish press. I had an e-mail yesterday from a constituent who works for the  Daily Record and the Sunday Mail and who was extremely unhappy about the impact that the merger of those papers will have, not only on staffing levels but on the working conditions and practices of those involved. I congratulate the National Union of Journalists on highlighting this issue in its campaign on the local and regional press.
	Today, I want to talk briefly about a different aspect of the provision of local and regional news. The United Kingdom should take the opportunity to set up a network of truly local television stations. If that were done in the right way, it could benefit not only the news environment but local newspapers as well. Members will know that, with few exceptions, this country has very few examples of genuinely local TV. We have various types of regional programmes, and a regional opt-out here and there, but we have no local TV networks that are truly focused on local communities in the way that local radio isparticularly with the growing network of commercial radio stations, such as the excellent Leith FM, which is based in my constituency and with which I was fortunate enough to do an interview only an hour or so ago.
	The present debate about the allocation of the digital spectrum means that we can, as part of the process, take steps to encourage the establishment of a network of genuinely local TV stations serving local communities. In Edinburgh, for example, we could have Edinburgh TV and, further afield, Fife TV or Scottish Borders TV. There are similar possibilities elsewhere in the UK to a greater or lesser extent.
	There is a debate in Scotland at the moment about the possibility of a new digital TV channel for Scotland as a whole, alongside the debate about broadcasting in general that has followed the establishment of the Scottish Broadcasting Commission by the Scottish Government. There is a rather sterile debate about whether 75 million should be found for a new Scotland-wide digital channel, yet we are not having the same kind of debate about local TV in Scotland. I am sure that that applies elsewhere as well. If the Scottish National party Members could have been bothered to turn up for this debate, they would no doubt have made some comments at this point, but unfortunately they do not appear to be here today.
	A move towards establishing a local TV network in the UK would clearly involve certain crucial financial and organisational issues, but they could be addressed. We need to establish that, in principle, we want to see the growth of a genuinely local TV network that would be delivered on Freeview as a new local tier of public service broadcasting. Above all, that network should be delivered by organisations based in their communities and offering a genuine local perspective, and not a network that purports to be local but in fact carries little more than the occasional local item to justify its licence. Such a development could also benefit local newspapers.
	I agree with the Minister that convergence offers great opportunities as well as great threats. In the process of considering how the world of local and regional news will move forward, we need to maximise the opportunities while remaining aware of the threats. For example, there is a threat that consolidation could result in even fewer players dominating even more of the media market at local as well as national level. We could see ourselves moving into a world where there is even less local news content in any local media form than there is at present. Those are directions in which we certainly do not want to move. If we work in the right way, we could actually see convergence and the development of local media such as local TV supporting other local media areas, so that the different forms could learn and benefit from sharing expertise, resources and, indeed, advertising, but that can be done only if we also accept that there has to be a real plurality of ownership, real competition and, above all, local TV and local media more genuinely based in local communities.

Nigel Evans: The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said that freezing the BBC licence fee would not do any good, and that it would be a gesture. Perhaps Mark Thompson would like to make a gesture, too, with the 816,000 package he gets? A lot of people in my constituency have to scrape hard to pay the licence fee, which will be 142.50 when the increase comes through next month. Freezing the licence fee would send the right signal. Everybody else has to tighten their belts. Indeed, the local newspapers, that we all love, are doing so, because they have to. As the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said, their advertising in areas such as employment, cars and property is shrinking. Therefore, they are making journalists redundantsome of whom have, no doubt, worked on the paper for a long time. There will also be fewer opportunities for young journalists leaving media courses, as they will find it more difficult to secure employment with such newspapers.
	We cherish these newspapers, and we must see what we can do to give them some support. In my patch, we have the  Lancashire Evening Telegraph and the  Lancashire Evening Post, and the weeklies,  The  Longridge News and the  Clitheroe Advertiser and Times. They have internet sections as well, and they must do that for the future; they must see the internet not as a problem that will put them out of business, but as an opportunity that will give them great potential for the future, with advertising online as well as in the newspaper. Goodness knows what will happen in 40, 30 and 20 years' time.
	Will newspapers in the form that we know them today survive at all? Perhaps all the local news will be accessed via iPhones, BlackBerries or goodness knows what other devices that we can only imagine now. There are probably kids in silicon valley working on the next device that everybody will be buying in order to download newspapers. We must ask what can be done in the meantime to ensure the viability of local newspapers, so that they are still around to embrace the new technology. There is nothing worse than seeing a newspaper that was established 100 years ago or more going to the wall because of the current financial crisis. We must do everything possible to support local papers.
	We use local papers to get our messages across, because the news is local to people and they savour finding out what their politicians are doing. We get lots of opportunities to get stuff in the local papers, whereas it is far more difficult, although not impossible, for us to get stuff in the national papers or on to the national TV or radio news. People want to know about what is happening locallyin their own communitiesand thank goodness we are helped by journalists who are employed here in Parliament and are basically conduits for us to get our messages across. I should also mention the team of expert journalists who work for these papers in our own constituencies, because they know our patches as well as we do and, thus, when we talk to them they know what we are talking about.
	On regional TV news, I am delighted that the BBC was not allowed to do what it wanted to dodevelop its local TV stations, featherbedded by its 3.5 billion of licence fee payers' money, which it gets whatever it does. The plans would have crippled a lot of our commercial newspapers and, indeed, ITV, which is against the wall at the moment, as I have seen in my region. Granada TV, my local station, does a great job with Granada Reports and Party People, which is the local political programme, but even over the past 12 months the coverage of Party People has diminishedinstead of being on every week while the House is sitting it is now on once a month. The tremendous current affairs programming that Granada used to do, which involved great expertise, has been diminished; Granada is having to pull its horns in simply because of the financial crisis.
	I hope that the Minister has some answer on giving support to local papers and regional news. I think that product placement would have been one of the answers; it would have given ITV an opportunity to get some extra cash, at least during this recession.

Robert Wilson: I felt compelled to take part in this debate as only last week one of my local newspapers, the  Reading Evening Post announced that it will stop publishing daily and will instead publish twice a week. That will mean the loss of some 100 jobs, which is bad enough in itself, but the change will also have an impact on the wider community. Local newspapers are incredibly important to local communities. A local newspaper can act as the glue that binds communities together. For example, local charities, voluntary organisations, sports clubs and many other organisations rely on their local newspapers to support everything from fundraising to recruiting new members or volunteers.
	The  Evening Post is one of only three regional newspapers to have increased its circulation over the past year, so it is very disappointing that it faces these cuts. It has a good teamI know the editor, Andy Murrill, well, and although politically we differ markedly, I know that he is a very good editor who cares deeply and passionately about Reading and its people. His newspaper reflects his own view that being involved in and supporting the diversity of the town is essential to both the present and the future of the town.
	My constituency is a very diverse area with many different ethnic groups and religious creeds. Relations across those groups are good precisely because the newspapers in the town, especially the  Evening Post, have taken such a positive approach to building understanding and good relationships. Andy Murrill deserves enormous credit for the part that he has played in that.
	In order to weather the economic storm, local papers need both our understanding of the challenges they face and our support. I believe that the public sector has a role to play, particularly with regard to advertising, of course, in circumstances where that represents the best value. Local newspapers give councils, hospitals and the police, for example, an enormous amount of positive and free publicity, but those organisations have been switching their marketing and advertising spend to glossy in-house publications, recruitment websites and their own websites. I think that Reading borough council's glossy magazine costs about 60,000 a year, from memory, and it is read by probably 100 people in the borough. Taxpayer-funded organisations have a duty to get best value, spending their money wisely. Why print their own magazine when two perfectly good local newspapers exist to communicate exactly the same information? It makes no economic sense at all. In these difficult times, a two-way partnership with the public sector needs to be encouraged and established in which editorial content is financed through recruitment and public notice advertising. It is much better value for money and keeps local newspapers going.
	There is also a role for the Government. They need to look urgently at the law regarding monopoly restrictions on local newspapers. There is now so much media choice, with radio, TV, other niche publications and websites, that the notion of strictly newspaper-dominated local monopolies simply does not hold water. There is also a certain paradox. Some newspaper groups have always enjoyed a monopoly in certain towns with absolutely no problem at all, yet newspapers cannot merge in other towns to safeguard their futures. That does not seem to be either fair or in the community's interests. The Office of Fair Trading perhaps needs to consider how it interprets the law with regard to the wider operation of the local media rather than simply considering the local newspapers. The  Reading Chronicle is part of a family-owned group, yet it was forced to sell one of its Slough newspapers owing to the OFT ruling that it would have a local monopoly.
	I can understand the concerns about local monopoly positions. I know that some local politicians in particular are concerned about the political and editorial stance of some local newspapers. My view is that local newspapers that want to maintain circulation will avoid getting involved in the childish political squabbles that take place from time to time and will focus just on serving the interests of their local communities.
	I would have liked to have gone on to talk a bit about local television, but I think that I am going to run out of time. My message to the House this afternoon, as well as to my local media, is: use it, or lose it.

Andrew Gwynne: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), I am concerned about the decision by the Guardian Media Group to close local news offices across Greater Manchester, coming as it does when the  Manchester Evening News, the regional sister paper, has already faced substantial cutbacks. The decision means that scores of journalists will lose their jobs, which will have a huge impact on the quality and coverage of local news in my Denton and Reddish constituency. There will be a profound impact on great local titles such as the  Stockport Express and Times and the  Tameside Advertiser.
	We all know that local newspapers have an absolutely central role at the heart of local communities, so I was shocked by the announcement that Guardian Media Group is making 150 redundancies, including 78 journalists, and closing all its weekly newspaper offices in Greater Manchester. It means that 39 jobs will go at the  Manchester Evening News and another 39 jobs will disappear in the weekly newspapers, including the titles covering my constituencythe  Stockport Express and Times and the  Tameside Advertise r.
	The plans also mean that all weekly papers in the  MEN group, from as far north as Accrington to as far south as Wilmslow, will be based at its Deansgate office in central Manchester. That is devastating not only for the staff involved, but for Greater Manchester and the surrounding areas as a whole.
	As we have already said, local newspapers play an essential role at the heart of their communities and are written by a group of dedicated journalists. Local newspapers provide quality, independent journalism; they hold authorities to account and campaign on behalf of readers, to professional standards of fairness and accuracy and with no agenda other than the public interest. It is more important than ever to preserve those principles, but the closure of local newspaper offices will have a profound effect on them. The founding fathers of  The  Manchester Guardian, as it was originally called, and in particular its long-time editor, C.P. Scott, would be appalled and saddened by the developments. As he said in his centenary lecture, a newspaper is
	much more than a business.
	It
	reflects and influences the life of a whole community
	and has a
	moral as well as a material existence.
	Let me give examples from my constituency. The  Stockport Express and Times and the  Tameside Advertiser are an integral part of their communities, and have been for many years. They play a major role in informing residents about events, crime, and local schools and their activities. They celebrate local success and highlight failures, and call the council and Members of Parliament to account through their investigative journalism.
	In Tameside, many people feel that moving the branch office from Ashton-under-Lyne will mean that local people will have reduced access to democracy. In my constituency, many people pop into the Ashton office to give journalists a juicy story, to find out more about something that appeared in the previous week's paper, or just to voice their concerns about certain issues. The same is true in Stockport, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport.
	Similar issues arise from reduced distribution. A substantial number of people do not have internet access, so they cannot go online to find out what is happening. The beauty of purely local newspapers is that they avoid that problem. If we lose that presence in the two boroughs that I represent, people will feel that the title should no longer be the  Tameside Advertiser or the  Stockport Express; the newspapers will be more a Tameside or Stockport version of the  Manchester Evening News, with a reduced number of pictures and stories, and more shared elements across the whole of Greater Manchester.
	For journalists, unemployment is a big issue. Most have trained to postgraduate level, and then spend at least 18 months training to take the national certificate examination in journalism. At present there are virtually no jobs to be had in journalism, certainly not in Greater Manchester, where the  Manchester Evening News media have a virtual monopoly. That means that standards in journalism will be lowered, and we should all be concerned about that.
	Localism is the important factor for people in my constituency. The  Stockport Express and the  Tameside Advertiser are wonderful local campaigning newspapers with dedicated journalists. The  Stockport Express has been an institution in Stockport since 1889. The  Tameside Advertiser is a newer title than its Stockport sister paper, but it is just as highly regarded in the borough. This disgraceful decision urgently needs to be reversed. The newspapers are the key to campaigning in our areas, and we need to make sure that they are preserved for the future.

Lindsay Hoyle: I requested this debate last Thursday, and I am pleased that we are holding it today. I am pleased that everyone has enjoyed it so far, and hopefully I can join in with a further contribution.
	I want to speak about regional television and the fact that regional television companies are under the cosh, none more so than Granada. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) rightly stressed the importance of political programmes. The BBC screens a regional political show on Sunday, and we must ensure that we retain the showing of Party People at least once a month. Indeed, it should not be shown once a month but once a week. That is what competition is about, and it is unfair that there is no competition in regional and local news, because of the dominance of the BBC.
	I have nothing against the BBC, and I want it to remain in place, but I want to ensure that there is a challenge and true competition, which must come from local newspapers, local radio and local television. Regional news and regional current affairs programmes must continue. Indeed, regional current affairs programmes are just as important as regional news. It is only right that BBC funding should be top-sliced, and that money should be put into a pot to ensure that there is true competition. The BBC has programmes online, and it has local radio, regional television and national television. There is nothing wrong with that, but I want competition to continue. It is important that ITV remains one of the main competitors.
	The issue of product placement has been raised. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State got it absolutely wrongproduct placement is a way of getting new revenue in and ensuring that there is true competition in the market. That is what we have to rememberit is about competition.
	Of course, we must talk about local radio, which is under the cosh, but there is some good news for my hon. Friend the Minister. On Saturday I had the pleasure of reopening the new studios for that great community radio, Chorley FM, which is broadcasting all over Chorley as we speak. Chorley FM shows that there is some good news coming out.
	As for our local newspapers, both daily and weekly, none are more important than the  Lancashire Evening Post, the  Lancashire Evening Telegraph and the  Bolton News. My constituents rely on those newspapers. There are times when we do not like what newspapers print, and there are times when we love what they print. The important point is that they are there to provide news locally, and it is local news that would not be picked up in any other way if it were not for local radio and local newspapers, such as the campaigning  Chorley Guardian.
	Chris McGuire and Vanessa Taylor, the veterans of the newsdesk and the  Chorley Guardian have not only run important campaigns, but have played an important part in raising money. After one of my colleagues on the local authority tragically died of cancer, the  Chorley Guardian ran the Mary's Prayer campaign, which raised the much needed sum of 50,000 for cancer charities.
	My constituent, Jessica Knight, was, tragically, subjected to a frenzied knife attack, was stabbed 35 times and survived. The  Chorley Guardian and the  Chorley Citizen ran a great campaign. The  Chorley Guardian raised 20,000 on behalf of Jessica Knight to set up a trust fund for the family during those difficult times. What other local newspapers have done is good, and if they did not such things, who would do it? There is nobody to step in and take their place.
	We have touched on what has happened under the Manchester Media newspapers. The  Chorley Citizen was running a very good weekly free sheet in Chorley. Unlike Preston and South Ribble, which lost their  Citizen newspapers, Chorley's remains, but it is now operating out of Blackburn. The news comes from that distant headquarters. Thank goodness we have Chris Gee as a reporter, a local person well qualified to report that local news. That is what it is aboutlocal people guaranteeing the news.
	If people want to know about a birth, a death or a marriage, as many do, they pick up the  Chorley Guardian. They look at the news and they want to find out who has died and who has been born. They all want to hear the good news as well. That is what the local media do. There is no alternative, so the Government must stand up and top slice some of that money from the BBC. Let us make a difference for the people we represent, give that money to the local media and ensure that there is competition in this country, not the dominance of the BBC.

Bob Russell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) for shortening his speech. With all due respect to the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), it is an affront to the House that we can now have a two-and-a-half-hour Adjournment debate, given that many of us would like to speak at greater length on this subject. That demonstrates that the Government are not that serious, bothered or concerned about what is happening in our provincial press. I have been advised that local newspaper weekweek as in seven days, not weakwill be from 11 to 17 May.
	I speak as a former branch secretary of the north Essex branch of the National Union of Journalists, and it may come as a surprise to colleagues that 40 years ago I was editor of a weekly newspaper. Looking back, it is clear that that was the heyday of local newspapers, when their penetration in local communities was virtually 100 per cent. What we are now witnessing is happening not only in newspapers but in regional television. Anglia Television, for example, has contracted its two news services into one, which means that across the east of England there is 120 hours a week less airtime for regional television.
	In recent weeks, all our local newspapers, the  Colchester Gazette, the award-winning  Essex County Standard and the  East Anglian Daily Times, have sacked staffnot that we read about it, because a non-aggression pact is in place. However, I can say that the  Colchester Gazette has dispensed with the services of 13 experienced journalists including the editor, the news editor, the chief sub-editor and the features editor. I am not criticising local journalists or the editor who is now running the  Gazette and the  Southend Echo, but the paper is now produced in Basildon and printed in Brighton for Colchesterit is our own BBC. My concern is that there is less and less coverage of our local councils, courts and so on, which is a serious problem for local democracy and accountability. Local journalists want to report on those things, but they are being prevented from doing so by commercial circumstances.
	Newspaper conglomerates have built up massive profits over the years. They have not invested properly, yet they still want to cream off as much profit as they can. The Government need to act and get a grip on that.

Diane Abbott: I do not want to turn this issue into a public health scare story about immigrants, but the danger is that because the issue involves excluded groups it does not necessarily get the attention that it deserves.

Dawn Primarolo: My hon. Friend has been in the House as long as I havewe entered together in 1987and she has a remarkable ability to predict what Ministers are about to say or to guide them to what they should say next. On this occasion, I was about to deal with that important point. In addressing the serious health issues for those infected with TB and ensuring that they get the services that they deserve and need, we need to be very carefulI think that the hon. Gentleman was trying to be carefulnot to add further to stigma and alarm in our communities and, therefore, inadvertently put further barriers in the way of those people coming forward for treatment.
	TB is not a threat to the general population of the UKI do not think that the hon. Gentleman meant to imply thatand that is why the Government of the day stopped the inoculations for TB. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is old enough to rememberI certainly amwhen we had to have those inoculations at school. The risks have considerably diminished, and the strategy to tackle TBinformed by the science and the analysis by the Department of Healthis now based around an action plan with three specific themes: first, to reduce the risk of people being newly infected with TB; secondly, to provide high-quality treatment and care for all people with TB; and thirdly to maintain low levels of drug resistance, especially multi-drug resistant TB. I shall explain why that is important, although having heard the details of my hon. Friend's constituent's case I can see why she thinks that those three principles were not followed.
	Some two thirds of all TB cases occur in people who have come to live in the UK, and some 39 per cent. of all cases in 2007 were in London. My hon. Friend mentioned screening, but most TB is categorised as latent and non-infectious, and is therefore difficult to detect. In as many as a third of all cases, especially in those travelling to the UK to live and work, the TB will be latent. Only roughly one in 10 will go on to develop active TB that is infectious to others.
	Regrettably, there is no reliable test to determine which latent TB carrier will develop the active disease. That should reassure the hon. Gentleman about the work that the Department and the health service are doing to reach out to the very groups that he and my hon. Friend identified. Perhaps I should at this point address the question of whether there is screening. I suppose the answer is yes and no, so I shall try to be more specific.
	The long-standing policy is that immigrants from high-prevalence countries who are seek to enter the UK for more than six months are screened for TB on arrival at the port of entry. A scheme to test applicants overseas rather than at the point of entry began in 2005 and testing currently occurs in seven high-incidence countries. So, to answer my hon. Friend's point, there is some screening, but she is quite right that it is not systematic screening of everyone, and nor could it benor should it be, in my opinion. Such proposals need to be proportionate to the risk, which means that there is not screening across the board for very obvious reasons.
	As my hon. Friend pointed out, the PCT in Hackney has the 11th highest rate of TB in the cityjust over 60 cases per 100,000 people. That is not the highest rate in London, but the lowest is 6.7 per 100,000. The data for the past five years show that rates in City and Hackney PCT have been declining and continue to do so.

Dawn Primarolo: I agree with my hon. Friend. The point that I wanted to make specifically arises from the chief medical officer's action plan, which gave guidance on how to develop effective TB services. He made the same point as my hon. Friend about the need to reach out to those high-incidence areas and to communities and sections of our communities that are much more difficult to reach for a series of complex reasons, and where there is therefore the greatest risk of infection increasing. My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster both pointed out that people who are homeless traditionally find it much more difficult to access health care, as do people with alcohol dependency, injecting drug users and prisoners. All those issues are specifically addressed in the action plan, which provides detail about how the strategies in areas of TB incidence should ensure that the cases are found and about how those areas should have an active policy of doing that.
	Indeed, that was further underlined by the good practice guide in March 2006, when the National Institute for Health and Clinical ExcellenceNICEissued clinical guidance for the management of TB and measures for its prevention and control. That guidance made specific recommendations about the types of treatment that should be used, particularly directly observed therapies, and about how to reach out to those vulnerable groups.
	The plan identified 10 action points. It said that there was a need to raise awareness among professionals to minimise delays in diagnosis and to ensure that treatment is completed. It also said that there should be high-quality surveillance. I am always nervous about using that word, but by that it meant that health providers should monitor their communities so that they know where the risks lie and where the services are located.
	The plan also emphasised the necessity of excellence in clinical care, and it said that patient services should be well organised and co-ordinateda point that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington made with regard to her constituent. The plan said that there should be highly effective disease control and management, that there should be an expert work force with strong commitment and leadership and that international partnerships should be formed to ensure that effective contributions are made towards controlling TB globally.
	Most important of all, in 2007 the Department initiated what it called a find and treat programme in London, under which team members have been working alongside local TB services to look for cases of the disease among the homeless and other vulnerable groups. The aim has been to help improve the completion of treatment and actively promote the use of directly observed therapy. The find-and-treatment team are using equipment such as mobile X-ray units to screen systematically in places such as homeless hostels and, if she has not done so already, I hope that my hon. Friend gets an opportunity to see one of the units in action. The teams also ensure that suspected TB cases are taken to local services for diagnosis and treatment. Although the treatment must be implemented in a clear manner, most of the decisions about how it is delivered are taken at the local level.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster is reassured that the find-and-treat initiative in London takes account of all the issues that he raised, and that it attempts to focus on the vulnerable groups about whom he is concerned. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington also said that we need to do more for those groups, and she has used this debate to ask whether such work is being undertaken in her PCT area.

Diane Abbott: The Minister mentioned directly observed therapy. I did not want to talk at length about that, but it was one of the concerns raised by Mr. McCabe. As a result of his complaints, and of the Healthcare Commission report, the City and Hackney PCT conducted an audit of its directly observed therapy services, but the audit currently remains in draft form only. There are many problems about how it has been drawn up, so will the Minister put pressure on the PCT to publish the audit in a proper form and fashion?